Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1295
MAGISTRATE COURT GEORGETOWN
PULAU PINANG CLINIC SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
WAKIL DIRI BAGI HARTA PUSAKA RANJIT KAUR NAHAR SINGH SI MATI & ANOR;.... – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-A72NCVC-185-05/2023]
A proposed intervener must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the subject matter to be allowed to intervene in proceedings; mere beneficiary status is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 15 Rule 6(2)(a) and (b) – Application to intervene and set aside Judgment In Default Of Appearance – Proposed Intervener (PI) failed to demonstrate a direct legal interest in the deceased estate, thus not meeting the requirements for intervention – The court held that PI's status as a beneficiary does not confer the necessary legal interest to intervene in the proceedings. (Paras 9, 10, 20, 29, 30)
(B) Legal Interest – The court emphasized that a proposed intervener must have a direct legal interest in the subject matter of the proceedings to be allowed to intervene, as established in case law. (Paras 22, 25, 28)
Facts of the case: The Plaintiff filed a writ action for unpaid medical bills against the estate of a deceased person. The Proposed Intervener sought to intervene and set aside the Judgment In Default obtained by the Plaintiff against the deceased's estate. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
Findings of Court: The court found that the Proposed Intervener does not have the necessary legal interest to intervene in the proceedings, as he is merely a beneficiary and not the appointed administrator of the estate. (Paras 29, 30)
Issues: Whether the Proposed Intervener should be allowed to intervene and whether the Judgment In Default should be set aside. (Paras 2, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a beneficiary does not have a legal interest in the estate until the administration is complete, thus failing to meet the criteria for intervention. (Paras 26, 28)
Result: Application dismissed with costs. (Para 32)
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
- A proposed intervener must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the subject matter to be allowed to intervene; mere beneficiary status is insufficient (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The court emphasized that a beneficiary does not have a legal interest in the estate until the administration is complete, which is necessary for intervention (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The application to intervene was made under specific rules that allow a party to be added or removed if it is just and convenient, provided certain conditions are met (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The court found that the proposed intervener did not meet the requirements because he was merely a beneficiary and not the appointed administrator of the estate (!) (!) (!) .
- The court determined that the presence of the proposed intervener was not necessary for the complete and effective determination of the issues in the case (!) (!) (!) .
- The proposed intervener's assertion of having a legal interest, such as being a lawful son and potential administrator, was not sufficient to establish a direct legal interest in the estate (!) (!) (!) .
- As the proposed intervener did not satisfy the legal interest requirement, his application to intervene was dismissed (!) .
- Since the application to intervene was dismissed, the proposed intervener lacked the standing to set aside the default judgment obtained against the estate (!) (!) .
- The court concluded that only parties with a direct legal interest in the estate could seek to set aside such judgments, and the proposed intervener did not qualify (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 15 - Application To Intervene And Set Aside Judgment In Default)
Introduction
[1] This is an application filed by the Applicant (A) / Proposed Intervener (PI) vide encl 15 under O 15 r 6 (2)(a) and (b) and O 13 r 8 of the Rules of 2012 ( ROC ) for leave to intervene into this proceeding and to set aside the Judgment In Default Of Appearance (JIDA) obtained by the Plaintiff (P) against the First Defendant (D1) on 9 June 2023.
[2] Should PI be permitted to intervene into this proceeding and should the JIDA be set aside?
Brief Background Facts
[3] On 9 May 2023, P filed a Writ action (ie: this suit) claiming for unpaid medical bills.
[4] Second Defendant (D2) filed Memorandum of Appearance (Encl 4) on 2 June 2023.
[5] On 8 June 2023, P filed Affidavit of Service (Encl 5) in order to prove service on D1.
[6] On 9 June 2023, P filed Certificate of Non-Appearance (Encl 7) under O 13 r 7 of the ROC 2012 and obtained JIDA against D1.
[7] On 11 August 2023, PI filed a Notice of Application (Encl 15) supported by an Affidavit In Support (Encl 16) in order to obtain leave to intervene into this proceeding and to set aside JIDA dated 9 June 2023 against D1.
The Words Of Order 15 Rule 6(2)(a) And (b)
[8] PI filed this application under O 15 r 6(2)(a)and (b). The relevant parts of O 15 r 6 are set out here:
6 Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (O 15 r 6)
(1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter.
(2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application:
(a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party;
(b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely:
(i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or
(ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which, in the opinion of the Court, would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter.
Are The Requirements Of Order 15 Rule 6(2)(a) And (b) Met By PI?
[9] In order for this Court to consider this application filed by PI to intervene, this Court must first determine whether PI has satisfied the requirements of O 15 r 6(2)(a) and (b).
Order 15 Rule 6(2)(a)
[10] PI made this application (Encl 15) under O 15 r 6(2)(a) and asserts that D1 has been improperly and unnecessarily made a party to this proceeding.
[11] This Court is guided and bound to follow the case of Kerajaan Malaysia v. Yong Siew Choon , where the Federal Court held that:
[8] ... The starting point for such a consideration is the object of O 15 r 6A which is described in the Malaysian High Court Practice (1998 Desk Edition) Vol I at p 361 in the following terms:
The purpose of this rule is to overcome the difficulties of suing the estate of a person who had died before the commencement of the action and in whose estate no grant of probate or of administration had been made. There is no person to sue.
[12] This Court is of the view that, D1 has been correctly named as one of the Defendant in this action taking into consideration that the deceased were the one who was admitted on 9 October 2022 and received the medical services from the Plaintiff. Since the deceased died on 20 October 2022 and no grant of probate or l
